D. L. J.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a delinquency adjudication but reversed the imposition of certain costs and fees. The court clarified the requirements for imposing public defender fees, costs of prosecution, and Crimes Compensation Trust Fund fees.
The court held that the trial court did not err in imposing the public defender fee, as the Florida Supreme Court recently ruled that notice is not required when imposing the statutory minimum. However, the court held that the cost of prosecution was improperly imposed without a request and the Crimes Compensation Trust Fund fee exceeded the statutory maximum.
[1] When a trial court imposes the statutory minimum public defender fee, it need not announce the imposition or inform the defendant of a right to contest the fee.
[2] A cost of prosecution under Florida law requires an express request from the State Attorney's Office and cannot be imposed without such a request.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“When imposing the statutory minimum, the trial court need not announce the imposition of the public defender's fee or inform the defendant of a right to contest the fee.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning for affirming the public defender fee.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.L.J. was adjudicated delinquent and ordered to pay various costs and fees. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in imposing a public defe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Costs Of Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge. D.L.J. appeals his adjudication of delinquency and the imposition of certain costs and fees.
We affirm the adjudication without comment but see error in two of the three cost and fee issues. D.L.J. first asserts that the trial court erred by imposing the statutory minimum $100 public defender fee without informing him that he had the right to contest the amount of the fee. See § 938.29(1)(a), (5), Fla. Stat. (2019); see also Newton v. State, 262 So. 3d 849, 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (holding that the trial court must notify a defendant of the right to contest the fee even when the court imposes the statutory minimum and the defendant can gain nothing by challenging it).
However, the Florida Supreme Court recently held that "[w]hen imposing the statutory minimum, the trial court need not announce the imposition of the public defender's fee or inform the defendant of a right to contest the fee." State v. J.A.R., 46 Fla.
L. Weekly S157, S158 (Fla. June 3, 2021).
Therefore, D.L.J. is not entitled to relief on this issue. D.L.J. also contests the imposition of a $100 cost of prosecution, pointing out that the State did not specifically request it at sentencing. See § 938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2019) ("In all criminal and violation-of-probation or community-control cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, by fire departments for arson investigations, and by investigations of the Department of Financial Services or the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission, if requested by such agencies." (emphasis added)).
The State maintains that only the listed agencies, not the State Attorney's Office (SAO), must make an express request, but our court has held that the requirement applies to the SAO as well. See Vandawalker v. State, 310 So. 3d 483 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); Davis v. State, 286 So. 3d 898, 899 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019); Mercado v. State, 304 So. 3d 786 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018).
Thus, this cost was imposed in error and must be stricken. Last, D.L.J. complains that his $115 Crimes Compensation Trust Fund (CCTF) fee exceeds the statutory maximum. The State concedes error on this point, and we agree that the fee must be reduced. See § 938.03(1), Fla. Stat. (2019) ("Any person . . . being . . . adjudicated delinquent for[] any felony, misdemeanor, delinquent act, or criminal traffic offense under the laws of this state . . . shall pay as an additional cost in the case, in addition and prior to any other cost required to be imposed by law, the sum of $50." (emphasis added)).
Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency and the imposition of the public defender fee but remand for the prosecution cost to be stricken and for the CCTF fee to be reduced to $50.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. VILLANTI and LABRIT, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D. L. J. v. State, 46 Fla. L. Weekly S157 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
-
Dibelka v. State, 326 So. 3d 835 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
-
Linton Eugene Hodges v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- D. L. J. v. State, 46 Fla. L. Weekly S157 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)
- Vandawalker v. State, 286 So. 3d 898 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
- Delvin L. Walker v. State, 262 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)